Inform v. U.S. Department of Energy

Full title: INFORMATION NETWORK FOR RESPONSIBLE MINING ("INFORM"), and COLORADO…

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Apr 30, 2008

Civil Case No. 06-cv-02271-REB-CBS (D. Colo. Apr. 30, 2008)

Opinion

Civil Case No. 06-cv-02271-REB-CBS.

April 30, 2008

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 59(e)

ROBERT BLACKBURN, District Judge

The matter before me is Defendant's Motion Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) [#66], filed April 4, 2008. I grant the motion.

Defendants maintain that I made in inaccurate finding of fact, based on a misstatement of fact in defendant's affidavit evidence, in my Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment [#63], filed March 18, 2008. I overlooked defendant's attempt to correct the misstatement in its reply brief. This circumstance presents a proper ground for reconsideration. See Servants of the Paraclete v. Does , 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10^th Cir. 2000) ("[A] motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the controlling law."). Based on this statement, I found, at page 8 of the order, that defendant's evidence "establishe[d] without question that both active and inactive computer files were searched initially. From that more global search, it was determined that only the 13 active files contained potentially responsive documents." Id. at 8 (citations omitted). In actuality, documents responsive to plaintiffs' FOIA request were found in all 38 lease files, both active and inactive, and such were produced to plaintiffs. (Def. Motion App., Exh. 1 ¶ 3 at 2.)

Defendant has provided a supplemental affidavit affirming the true facts. Plaintiffs have filed no response to the motion, which I construe as a confession of the facts asserted therein. Granting the motion will work no substantive change in my prior decision.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That Defendant's Motion Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) [#66], filed April 4, 2008, is GRANTED;

2. That my Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment [#63], filed March 18, 2008, is AMENDED as set forth herein;

3. That the fourth sentence of the second paragraph on page 8 of the Order, which presently reads, "From that more global search, it was determined that only the 13 active files contained potentially responsive documents. ( Id. ¶ 5 at 2.)," is STRICKEN and the following language shall be SUBSTITUTED: "From that more global search, it was determined that all 38 lease files contained potentially responsive documents. ( See Defendant's Motion Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) App., Exh. 1 (Third Declaration of Sheila G. Dillard ¶ 3 at 2) [#66], filed April 4, 2008.);" and

4. That an amended order reflecting the above change SHALL BE FILED forthwith.